Apple and Samsung on Wednesday laid bare their respective patent claims and arguments in a pair of court briefs for the high-stakes patent trial set to begin proceedings on Monday, July 30.

Both parties have submitted claims and counter-claims in the months preceding Monday's jury trial and much of what is argued has already been thoroughly discussed. There has not, however, been summarizing documents which encompass the arguments asserted by the two companies until Apple and Samsung filed their trial briefs today.

Apple's trial brief

In its 66-page filing Apple claims Samsung not only violated intellectual property rights but asserts the South Korean company based its corporate strategy on copying the iPhone maker's designs. Apple says it "will rely on Samsung's own documents, which tell an unambiguous story" to argue its case, referring to a number of cited materials allegedly showing purposeful action was taken to mimic the success of the iPhone and iPad.

Apple notes that in a formal Samsung-sponsored evaluation "famous designers" told the Galaxy maker that its products were too similar to iDevice design. For example, one designer said the Galaxy S "[c] oosely [sic] resembles the iPhone shape so as to have no distinguishable elements,? and ?[a]ll you have to do is cover up the Samsung logo and it?s difficult to find anything different from the iPhone.?

Of note, Google itself mentioned that Samsung's P1 and P3 tablets, later marketed as the Galaxy Tab and Galaxy Tab 10.1, were too similar in design to Apple's iPad.

From Apple's brief:

In 2011, Samsung?s own Product Design Group noted that it is ?regrettable? that the Galaxy S ?looks similar? to older iPhone models. And a Samsung-commissioned analysis concluded that Samsung?s smartphone container icons were ?too iPhone-like? and were ?strongly associated with the iPhone UI.? This evidence involves the products that Apple has accused of infringing its design patents and violating its trade dress rights, including the Galaxy S phone (sold in the U.S. as the ?Vibrant? and other names), the Galaxy Tab 10.1, and the icon containers that Samsung used on its smartphones.

The same arguments were used against Samsung's UI design, which Apple claims was adopted because consumer response to the established properties was positive. Here Apple asserts the '381 or "rubber-banding" patent which describes a visual element that, when applied to scrolling operations on a touchscreen device, causes a bouncing or rubber-banding effect.

From the brief:

Similarly, in April 2011, Samsung concluded from a comparison of one of its tablets with the iPad that Samsung?s tablet lacked the iPad?s ?Fun, Wow Effect? because there was no ?springing Bounce effect? during topmost and bottom-most diagonal movements.

With this and more allegedly supportive evidence, Apple writes that Samsung's copying is enough to establish intent for willful infringement and argues that the violations amount to "billions of dollars" in damages. By Apple's calculations, Samsung's alleged indiscretions combine to total of $2.525 billion in unrecoverable losses.

If the jury finds Samsung has violated Apple's IP rights, the Cupertino-based company plans to seek an injunction to avoid further financial losses and the "irreparable harm Samsung's copying is inflicting on Apple."

Moving to Samsung's declared-essential patents, Apple claims the properties are both not infringed and invalid. One property among the many argued is the '941 patent for UMTS technology which, according to Apple, Samsung snuck by the 3GPP wireless standards body.

Apple explains:

In May 2005, Samsung convinced 3GPP to adopt a proposal to make minor changes to a few subsections of Section 25.322, one of hundreds of subsections of the UMTS specification that make up the overall 3GPP specification. Unbeknownst to 3GPP, less than a week before making its proposal, Samsung filed a patent application in Korea—the priority application to the ?941 patent—that Samsung contends covers the technology described in the proposal. Samsung did not disclose to 3GPP that it had filed this patent application. Indeed, Samsung did not disclose that it claimed to hold intellectual property rights over the technology until more than two years later, in August 2007. By that time, Section 25.322 had been frozen for almost two years, and it was too late for 3GPP to consider alternative proposals.

The same technique was supposedly used on the separate UMTS technology '516 patent. Apple claims it does not infringe on either the '941 or '516 patents and goes further, saying the '516 patent is invalid.

Also an issue is patent exhaustion, which Samsung argues does not apply. A similar case regarding the use of 3G/UMTS technology in Qualcomm chips was successfully argued by Apple in the Netherlands.

More serious allegation of antitrust breaches are raised as Samsung's standard-setting "deceit" is in violation of the Sherman Act, claims Apple:

Specifically, Samsung (1) deliberately and dishonestly failed to timely disclose IPRs it now claims cover technologies incorporated into the UMTS standard and (2) falsely promised to license its declared essential patents to all UMTS implementers on FRAND terms.

The FRAND issue has been the topic of much discussion as of late and the declared-essential patents are at the heart of Apple's battle with Motorola.

In an interview a few weeks ago, Apple?s Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook explained the significance of this case for Apple. ?

t is important for Apple not to be the developer for the world,? Mr. Cook said. ?We just want other people to invent their own stuff.?

Apple looks forward to a trial that will vindicate its intellectual property rights. Samsung must play by the rules. It must invent its own stuff. Its flagrant copying and massive infringement must stop.

Samsung's trial brief

Samsung goes on the defensive with its arguments, most of which have to do with its non-infringement of Apple's patents.

From Samsung's introduction:

In this lawsuit, Apple seeks to stifle legitimate competition and limit consumer choice to maintain its historically exorbitant profits. Android phones manufactured by Samsung and other companies ? all of which Apple has also serially sued in numerous forums worldwide -- offer consumers a more flexible, open operating system with greater product choices at a variety of price points as an alternative to Apple?s single, expensive and closed-system devices.
The company goes on to explain its importance in the wireless industry and makes special note that Apple entered the sector some time later:

Indeed, Apple, which sold its first iPhone nearly twenty years after Samsung started developing mobile phone technology, could not have sold a single iPhone without the benefit of Samsung?s patented technology. Even as Apple has carried out a coordinated campaign of dragging Samsung?s name through the mud in this lawsuit and in the media, it has used Samsung?s patented technology while flatly refusing to pay for its use.
Samsung claims it has used the same public domain design concepts that Apple "borrowed from other competitors, including Sony, to develop the iPhone." To prove this, Samsung will leverage internal documents including a "Sony-like" design model created by Apple designer Shin Nishibori.

From the brief:

Eliminating any doubt about the origin of the design?s inspiration, Apple?s internal CAD drawings had the "Sony" name prominently emblazoned on the phone design. Only days later, Apple designer Richard Howarth reported that, in contrast to another internal design that was then under consideration, Mr. Nishibori?s "Sony-style" design was "a much smaller-looking product with a much nicer shape to have next to your ear and in your pocket" and had greater "size and shape/comfort benefits." As Mr. Nishibori has confirmed, his "Sony-style" design changed the direction of the project that yielded the final iPhone designs.

Purported Apple CAD design study. | Source: Samsung trial brief

The documents also allegedly show that Apple admitted its strength lies not in developing new technologies first, but in "commercializing them." Samsung asserts that features were taken from other handset makers like Nokia, Palm and others. With the assertions, Samsung is attempting to negate Apple's claim to be the inventor of the now-iconic iPhone design.

The brief goes on to nullify Apple's copying allegations by noting the development of "numerous products and models with the same design features" as the iPhone. Samsung claims its designers were already thinking of a simple, screen-dominated device in 2006. Also during this time, the simple icon layout with different landscape and portrait orientations seen in what has become iOS was envisioned by the Korean company.

Images of Samsung handsets from 2006. | Source: Samsung trial brief

As for Apple's utility patents, Samsung claims the features were already in "widespread use" prior to the iPhone's launch in 2007 and the company has "dead-on prior art" invalidating the IP. On this basis, Samsung at the same time invalidates and claims no infringement on Apple's '163 patent for a "structured electronic document" as well as the ''915 "scroll event" patent.

In arguing against Apple's design patents, Samsung claims that "minor differences matter" and cites two cases, one regarding a horse saddle and the other a automobile tire. To this end, Samsung says: "Any generalized argument by Apple that minor differences must preclude a finding of non-infringement is therefore unsupported by law and misleading. This is especially true where, as here, Apple is claiming only parts of a hand-held device with minimal features."

The company claims that Apple's FRAND defenses are meritless and notes licenses for the Samsung technology used in iDevices have been offered to "every major player in the mobile industry" with positive results across the board. Apple is supposedly the only firm to have denied the cross-licensing deal.

Samsung furthermore refutes Apple's damages claims:

[Apple] seeks to collect "lost profits" despite the fact that no one buys phones because they have "bounce back" feature or other manifestations of Apple?s alleged inventions asserted in this case. Damages are meant to compensate, not confer an absurd windfall at the expense of competitions and consumers worldwide.
For its part, Samsung is asking for royalties related to the UMTS standards used in the iPhone.

"Android phones manufactured by Samsung and other companies ? all of which Apple has also serially sued in numerous forums worldwide -- offer consumers a more flexible, open operating system with greater product choices at a variety of price points as an alternative to Apple?s single, expensive and closed-system devices."

Whether true or not, this statement is aimed at the jury's emotions and seems completely irrelevant to the intellectual property claims. Infringement is infringement even if it's flexible, open, and full of choices.

"Android phones manufactured by Samsung and other companies ? all of which Apple has also serially sued in numerous forums worldwide -- offer consumers a more flexible, open operating system with greater product choices at a variety of price points as an alternative to Apple?s single, expensive and closed-system devices."

Whether true or not, this statement is aimed at the jury's emotions and seems completely irrelevant to the intellectual property claims. Infringement is infringement even if it's flexible, open, and full of choices.

It also doesn't matter how many companies Apple has sued, whether they did it serially or in parallel or something else entirely. If Apple is convinced they did something illegal, they have a right to sue them.

Now Samsung showing that chart as proof they were thinking of this type of design before the iPhone came out seems to actually have some merit, at least to a non-lawyer. But even if there were similar phone designs before, how does that extend to implying they didn't infringe on the "scroll event" patent? As with the quote you pointed out above, it seems even when Samsung has a point to make, they try too hard to muddy the waters with other irrelevant points, instead of arguing each on its own terms.

The company claims that Apple's FRAND defenses are meritless and notes licenses for the Samsung technology used in iDevices have been offered to "every major player in the mobile industry" with positive results across the board. Apple is supposedly the only firm to have denied the cross-licensing deal.

I really love this part. Samsung claims that Apple has no claim cause every other company was happy to license whatever Samsung wanted. But under the rules, a company can't force another company to license non SEP patents and cross licensing as payment for a SEP (ie FRAND) patent in lieu of cash an only be done if the nonSEP holder is willing to license the patent. If not the only choice is cash.

In May 2005, Samsung convinced 3GPP to adopt a proposal to make minor changes to a few subsections of Section 25.322, one of hundreds of subsections of the UMTS specification that make up the overall 3GPP specification. Unbeknownst to 3GPP, less than a week before making its proposal, Samsung filed a patent application in Korea—the priority application to the ?941 patent—that Samsung contends covers the technology described in the proposal. Samsung did not disclose to 3GPP that it had filed this patent application. Indeed, Samsung did not disclose that it claimed to hold intellectual property rights over the technology until more than two years later, in August 2007. By that time, Section 25.322 had been frozen for almost two years, and it was too late for 3GPP to consider alternative proposals.

Nothing shady about that. /s I can't wait to see the Samsungistas defend that one.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

It also doesn't matter how many companies Apple has sued, whether they did it serially or in parallel or something else entirely. If Apple is convinced they did something illegal, they have a right to sue them.

Now Samsung showing that chart as proof they were thinking of this type of design before the iPhone came out seems to actually have some merit, at least to a non-lawyer. But even if there were similar phone designs before, how does that extend to implying they didn't infringe on the "scroll event" patent? As with the quote you pointed out above, it seems even when Samsung has a point to make, they try too hard to muddy the waters with other irrelevant points, instead of arguing each on its own terms.

"More than seven years before Apple Inc. rolled out the iPhone, the Nokia team showed a phone with a color touch screen set above a single button. The device was shown locating a restaurant, playing a racing game and ordering lipstick. In the late 1990s, Nokia secretly developed another alluring product: a tablet computer with a wireless connection and touch screen—all features today of the hot-selling Apple iPad." source http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304388004577531002591315494.html

As a lay person the Apple case regarding "rubber-banding" does seem compelling, I am even willing to accept that the oft touted Samsung charger does look ridiculously like the Apple one. The icon grid is obviously nothing new although I guess 3 icons wide was optimal on the older smaller phones.

I guess that as a result of the way that the law works Apple have to clutch at (too many?) straws and it is obviously not in their interest to admit that they took inspiration from other handsets and OSes.

In short, Apple copied, Samsung copied, everyone copies. If Samsung did steal "rubber-banding" they should have to pay a fine and send out firmware updates to modify things. By the same token, Apple should then expect to see a review of some the patents that have been granted in light of any new evidence that may arise.

"More than seven years before Apple Inc. rolled out the iPhone, the Nokia team showed a phone with a color touch screen set above a single button. The device was shown locating a restaurant, playing a racing game and ordering lipstick. In the late 1990s, Nokia secretly developed another alluring product: a tablet computer with a wireless connection and touch screen—all features today of the hot-selling Apple iPad." source http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304388004577531002591315494.html

As a lay person the Apple case regarding "rubber-banding" does seem compelling, I am even willing to accept that the oft touted Samsung charger does look ridiculously like the Apple one. The icon grid is obviously nothing new although I guess 3 icons wide was optimal on the older smaller phones.

I guess that as a result of the way that the law works Apple have to clutch at (too many?) straws and it is obviously not in their interest to admit that they took inspiration from other handsets and OSes.

In short, Apple copied, Samsung copied, everyone copies. If Samsung did steal "rubber-banding" they should have to pay a fine and send out firmware updates to modify things. By the same token, Apple should then expect to see a review of some the patents that have been granted in light of any new evidence that may arise.

Where is the proof that they took inspiration from the Nokia phone with a touch screen (that wasn't capacitance) and had only one button (which Apple had been infamously known for since the first Mac)?

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

It also doesn't matter how many companies Apple has sued, whether they did it serially or in parallel or something else entirely. If Apple is convinced they did something illegal, they have a right to sue them.

Now Samsung showing that chart as proof they were thinking of this type of design before the iPhone came out seems to actually have some merit, at least to a non-lawyer. But even if there were similar phone designs before, how does that extend to implying they didn't infringe on the "scroll event" patent? As with the quote you pointed out above, it seems even when Samsung has a point to make, they try too hard to muddy the waters with other irrelevant points, instead of arguing each on its own terms.

2.5 billion dollar Apple is asking is majorly design patent related.

If Samsung can get away with design patent infringement through any means like touting functional designs which even California court agreed cannot be patented ( like rounded corners, speaker on top, rectangle, etc) or by proving that they have evolved to these designs or by any other means, then damages would be much much lesser.

But I have no doubt of following patents coming in Apple favour:-

1, Ipad design patent

2, majority of technical patents.

No since galaxy tab has hardly any sales in US, they will not get pinched much there.

Where is the proof that they took inspiration from the Nokia phone with a touch screen (that wasn't capacitance) and had only one button (which Apple had been infamously known for since the first Mac)?

It was not my intention to suggest that apple were aware of the Nokia phone, I have no idea if they did or didn't. I was suggesting that different parties can design similar items without prior knowledge of each others.

"In order to distract from the weakness of its infringement claims, Apple offers misguided allegations of copying that are refuted by evidence of Samsung‘s independent creation. Prior to the iPhone‘s announcement in January 2007, Samsung was already developing numerous products and models with the same design features that Apple now claims were copied from the iPhone. In the summer of 2006, Samsung began designing its next generation of mobile phones, based on the market trend of ever-increasing screen size. At that time, Samsung‘s designers envisioned a basic design: a simple, rounded rectangular body dominated by a display screen with a single physical button on the face. For example, internal Samsung design presentations from the summer of 2006 showed the following designs Samsung was considering:

Id. One of these designs became the Samsung F700 phone, which was the subject of a Korean design registration application in December 2006, a month before Apple unveiled the iPhone. Tellingly, Apple at first included Samsung‘s F700 in its indiscriminant ―copying allegations, but later withdrew its infringement charges once Samsung‘s prior independent creation left Apple no choice but to concede that its copying accusations against that device were false....

Also during this time period during the Summer and Fall of 2006, Samsung designers envisioned a simple icon interface, with rounded rectangular icons arranged in a grid format, appropriately spaced for the size of the screen and the human hand. As one example, an internal Samsung design presentation dated September 14, 2006 showed the following GUI layouts and adjustable orientations:...

As these documents confirm, Samsung independently developed the allegedly copied design features months before Apple had even announced the iPhone. It did not switch its design direction because of the iPhone. Contrary to Apple‘s cherry-picked ―pre and ―post iPhone choices of Samsung‘s phones, Samsung designed and developed large screen smartphones before the iPhone—as well as bar type phones, sliders, and folder phones. Samsung continued to do so after the iPhone as well"

On page 16, it says

"Unlike Apple, which was not a participant in the mobile communications industry until it released the first iPhone in mid-2007, Samsung began developing mobile communications technology in 1991. Samsung has since invested billions of dollars in developing the backbone of the industry and the wireless standards necessary for smartphones. Between 2005 and 2010 alone, Samsung invested $35 billion in research and development relating to telecommunications technology, with over 20,000 engineers worldwide dedicated to telecommunications research and development.

Apple relied heavily on Samsung‘s technology to enter the telecommunications space, and it continues to use Samsung‘s technology to this day in its iPhone and iPad products. For example, Samsung supplies the flash memory, main memory, and application processor for the iPhone. Samsung also manufactures Apple‘s A5X processor and is the sole supplier of the Retina display used in the new iPad. But Apple also uses patented Samsung technology that it has not paid for. This includes standards-essential technology required for Apple‘s products to interact with products from other manufacturers, and several device features that Samsung developed for use in its products."

How hard is it to put something on the market that looks different enough to a competitors product? Even if Samsung says the Galaxy S was an evolution of a 2006 concept, it was wasn't released until 2010. Between 2006 and 2010 was it not possible to tweak the design enough to not look like an iPhone? Or is Samsung claiming there is only one obvious/inevitable way to design a smartphone? Because the Wave (at least fromma hardware design perspective) doesn't really remind you of an iPhone. But the original Galaxy S certainly does.

It also doesn't matter how many companies Apple has sued, whether they did it serially or in parallel or something else entirely. If Apple is convinced they did something illegal, they have a right to sue them.

Now Samsung showing that chart as proof they were thinking of this type of design before the iPhone came out seems to actually have some merit, at least to a non-lawyer. But even if there were similar phone designs before, how does that extend to implying they didn't infringe on the "scroll event" patent? As with the quote you pointed out above, it seems even when Samsung has a point to make, they try too hard to muddy the waters with other irrelevant points, instead of arguing each on its own terms.

Not really though. If you search for the phones they were actually selling in 2006 they look nothing like this. If they were really working on these designs why wouldn't they patent them. Its clear the iPhone was almost 5 years in the making. Remember too that they already had prototypes for the iPad in 2002 that had a similar design just bigger. With all of the iPhone leaks and rumors before the release they had plenty of time to do mock ups based on Apples design. Both Samsung and Google had inside information that Apple was really doing a phone, what it would include and when it would be released. Remember Google had someone on Apples Board and Samsung was supplying the screen and other tech so they were the only competitors that knew the rumors were true.

Apple's arch-rival, Android phonemaker Samsung Electronics Comp., is believed to have sold around 50 million smartphones for the quarter. In other words, it is out-selling Apple -- by itself -- approximately 2-to-1 in unit sales. In fact, Samsung's flagship Galaxy S III smartphone reportedly alone moved 19 million units. That means that Samsung's sales of just its top model are already approaching Apple's total sales.

Contrary to Apple‘s cherry-picked ―pre and ―post iPhone choices of Samsung‘s phones, Samsung designed and developed large screen smartphones before the iPhone—as well as bar type phones, sliders, and folder phones. Samsung continued to do so after the iPhone as well"

All those pre/post photos doing the rounds are so childish, sadly, people seem to treat them as gospel evidence.

So according to the WSJ apparently Samsung is claiming a 2006 Businessweek interview with Sony was the inspiration for the iPhone design. They claim this magazine article was passed around between Jobs, Tony Fadell and Jony Ive and it became the reference point for the iPhone design. Seems to be a bit of a stretch...it's not like Apple had this great fondness for buttons or excess ornamentation prior to the iPhone.

"Android phones manufactured by Samsung and other companies ? all of which Apple has also serially sued in numerous forums worldwide -- offer consumers a more flexible, open operating system with greater product choices at a variety of price points as an alternative to Apple?s single, expensive and closed-system devices."

Whether true or not, this statement is aimed at the jury's emotions and seems completely irrelevant to the intellectual property claims. Infringement is infringement even if it's flexible, open, and full of choices.

The jury will never see the brief. Therefore, it cannot be "aimed at the jury's emotions".

The iPhone design was well under way long before that article came out. Besides, it's irrelevant. There's nothing wrong with taking inspiration from a competitor's product. It's the slavish copies (a la Samsung) that are wrong. This is just further evidence that Samsung thinks that blatant theft is OK - they clearly don't even understand the difference between 'inspiration' and 'copying'.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

Where is the proof that they took inspiration from the Nokia phone with a touch screen (that wasn't capacitance) and had only one button (which Apple had been infamously known for since the first Mac)?

Is it necessary to prove when, where and how Apple took inspiration from the Nokia? That seems like a heavy burden.

In copyright law, it is not necessary to prove that the copying was intentional. That was established in the case of "My Sweet Lord" by George Harrison, which was found to have infringed on "She's So Fine", despite the fact that Harrison didn't realize that the tune in his head came from an existing song.

I don't know if the rule extends to patent claims or not.

And we don't know where Samsung got the examples of other phones that predated the iPhone, but looked basically like the iPhone, If they got them from Apple's files in discovery, then the proof would be easy to infer. If they got them from widely available public sources, then one could infer that Apple likely had seen them. If they got them from sooper seekrit Nokia sources, then conscious copying by Apple is difficult to establish.

But again - I don't know if Samsung has to prove that Apple specifically copied the prior art, or just that the prior art existed and was known in the industry.

Not really though. If you search for the phones they were actually selling in 2006 they look nothing like this. If they were really working on these designs why wouldn't they patent them. Its clear the iPhone was almost 5 years in the making. Remember too that they already had prototypes for the iPad in 2002 that had a similar design just bigger. With all of the iPhone leaks and rumors before the release they had plenty of time to do mock ups based on Apples design. Both Samsung and Google had inside information that Apple was really doing a phone, what it would include and when it would be released. Remember Google had someone on Apples Board and Samsung was supplying the screen and other tech so they were the only competitors that knew the rumors were true.

And page 2 & 3 of the Samsung brief.

"For good measure, Apple seeks to exclude Samsung from the market, based on its complaints that Samsung has used the very same public domain design concepts that Apple borrowed from other competitors, including Sony, to develop the iPhone. Apple‘s own internal documents show this. In February 2006, before the claimed iPhone design was conceived of, Apple executive Tony Fadell circulated a news article that contained an interview of a Sony designer to Steve Jobs, Jonathan Ive and others. In the article, the Sony designer discussed Sony portable electronic device designs that lacked ―excessive ornamentation‖ such as buttons, fit in the hand, were ―square with a screen and had ―corners [which] have been rounded out.... Immediately after this article was circulated internally, Apple industrial designer Shin Nishibori was directed to prepare a ―Sony-like design for an Apple phone and had CAD drawings and a three-dimensional model prepared. See Exs.... All citations to... ―Ex.‖ refer to exhibits attached to the Declaration of Joby Martin, filed concurrently herewith.

Eliminating any doubt about the origin of the design‘s inspiration, Apple‘s internal CAD drawings had the ―Sony name prominently emblazoned on the phone design. Only days later, Apple designer Richard Howarth reported that, in contrast to another internal design that was then under consideration, Mr. Nishibori‘s ―Sony-style‖ design was ―a much smaller-looking product with a much nicer shape to have next to your ear and in your pocket‖ and had greater ―size and shape/comfort benefits.‖ Ex. 3 (DX 562). As Mr. Nishibori has confirmed, his ―Sony-style‖ design changed the direction of the project that yielded the final iPhone designs.

....

Furthermore, much of what Apple complains of is the ―benchmarking of competitive products by Samsung. But this is a universal practice in the smartphone, tablet and other consumer electronics markets. It involves doing side-by-side product comparisons of competitors‘ products. Samsung certainly does this; so does Apple, and so does any company interested in continually improving its products for the benefit of consumers. There is nothing wrong with this common industry practice.That Apple itself zealously engages in the same type of benchmarking says everything about the disingenuous nature of Apple‘s allegation that this evidences ―"copying"."

It was not my intention to suggest that apple were aware of the Nokia phone, I have no idea if they did or didn't. I was suggesting that different parties can design similar items without prior knowledge of each others.

It's more than a stretch - it's total BS.
The iPhone design was well under way long before that article came out. Besides, it's irrelevant. There's nothing wrong with taking inspiration from a competitor's product. It's the slavish copies (a la Samsung) that are wrong. This is just further evidence that Samsung thinks that blatant theft is OK - they clearly don't even understand the difference between 'inspiration' and 'copying'.

I suppose the intent is to show that all designers take inspiration from other designers. But like you say there's a difference between being inspired by something and copying something, I'm sure Apple was inspired by Sony but no one would mistake a MBA for a Vaio. However some of the laptops/ultrabooks that came after the MBA and unibody MacBooks do look like copies more than anything else (good example is the HP Envy).

You know the answer to that question. The Samsungistas (attr. SolipsismX) live in a la-la land of numbers.

OK even if the S III sold 19M worldwide, so what? We already know that Apple's main competitor in the smartphone market is Samsung. And the S III got tons of press and was marketed like crazy. Let's compare numbers after the new iPhone is released this fall. Oh and the ones who should be worried about those numbers are HTC, Motorola and Nokia. Seems as though those who don't want an iPhone don't want HTC, Motorola or Nokia either.

All very interesting stuff. All this patent and trial stuff is a bit greek to me so I will wait for the trial to straighten things out. It will be interesting to see what has appeared in the press so far is real/imagined for each side.

It's more than a stretch - it's total BS.
The iPhone design was well under way long before that article came out. Besides, it's irrelevant. There's nothing wrong with taking inspiration from a competitor's product. It's the slavish copies (a la Samsung) that are wrong. This is just further evidence that Samsung thinks that blatant theft is OK - they clearly don't even understand the difference between 'inspiration' and 'copying'.

Moreover, Samsung can claim whatever the heck it wants about anything, since all its email evidence relating to the trial seems to have been deleted.Edited by anantksundaram - 7/26/12 at 6:32am

If I had to add a letter to oosely i would add L to make Loosely.... coosely isn't even a word!!!

Or did AI manipulate the word?

It looks like AI decided to try to insert the redacted content from Apple's trial brief. All Things Digital was reporting the content, so I imagine that AI took the content from them and inserted it into content that they got from the trial brief itself. Unless they have the unredacted version though, seems a little disingenuous of AI to not attribute rumored content.

Moreover, Samsung can claim whatever the heck it wants about anything, since all its email evidence relating to the trial seem to have disappeared.

It's not that bad. They did start keeping emails that might be applicable shortly before they received notice that Apple was filing suit. What the court is saying, and I agree with, is that Samsung should have anticipated the filing sooner than it did and begun keeping those email records about 6 months sooner. That's why the judge is giving Samsung the benefit of doubt and only noting to the jury that some evidence, perhaps beneficial to Apple's case or perhaps not, may not have been retained. If he felt it was willful destruction of evidence supporting Apples' case the jury instructions would be much more adverse. Email via Outlook, used primarily outside of Samsung's Korea offices, appears to be largely intact and available according to comments in the FOSSPatents blog article. It's the mySingle email system and it's 2-week deletion settings used by the Korean home offices that's at issue.

By not having those additional 6 months of emails there's only about 38 million pages of evidence submitted in the case for the court and the attorneys to rely on. (Perfect place for an "eyeroll")

Not really though. If you search for the phones they were actually selling in 2006 they look nothing like this. If they were really working on these designs why wouldn't they patent them. Its clear the iPhone was almost 5 years in the making. Remember too that they already had prototypes for the iPad in 2002 that had a similar design just bigger. With all of the iPhone leaks and rumors before the release they had plenty of time to do mock ups based on Apples design. Both Samsung and Google had inside information that Apple was really doing a phone, what it would include and when it would be released. Remember Google had someone on Apples Board and Samsung was supplying the screen and other tech so they were the only competitors that knew the rumors were true.

Simpleankit and hjb were mentioning that Samsung did put in a patent for the F700 in late 2006, so they may have a case that they came out with this first. Does it really even matter if they were prototypes Vs. patented retail models? If they can prove it's not a novel idea, isn't the patent invalid either way? Now, there is still the question of, did they have some idea of what the iPhone would look like ahead of time, since it must have been well into development by late 2006. That's one of the things the court is there to decide, right?

The company claims that Apple's FRAND defenses are meritless and notes licenses for the Samsung technology used in iDevices have been offered to "every major player in the mobile industry" with positive results across the board. Apple is supposedly the only firm to have denied the cross-licensing deal.

That's nice, but wasn't it Samsung who was asking a non-FRAND price for these patents, while offering them for a FRAND price to other licensees?

Besides that, even though I can understand part of Samsung's complaints (whines) regarding the fact that it at least sééms that Apple has been leaning heavily on the inspiration of that Sony phone concept (I can't say for sure because I don't know the factual story behind it), they're deeply mistaken that Apple is stiffling competition. There's no way ányone would or cóúld believe that the designs of Samsung's phones and accessoires are due to "natural evolution" of the/their smartphone designs. Besides the similarities in design, some elements are just 1-on-1 copies with even the measurements being earily similar to that of Apple's products.

Claiming that Apple wouldn't have been able to sell a single iPhone without Samsung's patented technology is even funnier. Those are FRAND-patents that ány phone maker needs in order to be able to make a phone/smartphone. Let's turn that around for a moment… I believe Samsung wouldn't be the number 2 in smartphone sales if they didn't blatantly copied Apple's designs. I believe that statement actually holds more ground than Samsung's dumb complaints.

And who knows why Apple had "Sony" on their first designs anyway? Perhaps they initially wanted Sony to máke the phone, with Apple's iOS on it.

Either way, I believe Samsung might be able to win a few cases in this whole trial-fest, but I strongly believe Apple will completely destroy most of their claims and will win a large portion of this whole trial… primarily the ones where Samsung is not offering these FRAND-patents fairly and the fact that Samsung's "designs" áre in fact too similar. If HTC, Motorola (partly) and Nokia are able to create original designs (wether or not you like them), Samsung should also be able to do so. There is no one single design that can be used as the answer to everything, and a product company should always strive to create their own identity by being original in their own way. Sometimes they might get it wrong, sometimes they might get it right. But either way they will always keep their dignity intact imho.